Hackers have circumvented the changes in Mac OS X 10.6.2 to allow the latest upgrade to Apple's Snow Leopard to run on netbooks with Intel Atom processors.

When Apple released Mac OS X 10.6.2 earlier this month, Intel Atom support was missing from the release. Though no Apple-sanctioned hardware uses the Atom processor, some low-cost netbook users would use the hack to install OS X on their systems.

The hack applies only to a select number of "Hackintosh" users, as not all who install Mac OS X on unauthorized machines use netbooks with Intel Atom processors. Atom is a low-voltage microprocessor used in inexpensive portable computers.

According to MacWorld, support for Mac OS X 10.6.2 has been brought to the Atom processor thanks to a complicated hack that requires use of the Terminal and replacing the kernel of the operating system.

Still unknown is whether Apple actually had any intent in disabling Atom processor support. It's possible the situation could be much like the cat-and-mouse game with Palm, where Apple released minor updates to iTunes that served only to break compatibility with the Pre smartphone. Or, since Apple likely does not test its software on products it does not ship, the Cupertino, Calif., company may have accidentally broken compatibility with Atom processors.

Even though Apple is kicking Pystars butt in court, there are dozens of other "cloners" in various countries around the world with various degrees of support in law. Then of course is the home tinkers too.

Apple will eventually have to realize they need to make some sort of hardware difference in Mac's that only allows them to run OS X.

If Apple continues in their present neglect, the OSX on PC community will grow so large as to be a legal threat to Apple.

Juries can be easily convinced that since Apple didn't enforce or make certain hardware differences over the many years, that essentially they allowed OS X on PC, thus now they will have to support it.

I also think Apple should seriously consider moving some factory operations back to the US, it's primary market. Not only because we need the jobs, but because the Chinese are playing economic warfare with their currency targeting to the dollar.

If the Chinese want to keep things even, then Apple and other manufacturing should be moved in proportion to the sales in that particular country.

The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...

Or, since Apple likely does not test its software on products it does not ship, the Cupertino, Calif., company may have accidentally broken compatibility with Atom processors.

Right, like Intel processors from 2000-2005. Then they decided to tell us that they have been building OS X on Intel the whole entire time OS X was alive, and oh by the way we're killing the PPC and going with Intel.

Even though Apple is kicking Pystars butt in court, there are dozens of other "cloners" in various countries around the world with various degrees of support in law. Then of course is the home tinkers too.

Apple will eventually have to realize they need to make some sort of hardware difference in Mac's that only allows them to run OS X.

If Apple continues in their present neglect, the OSX on PC community will grow so large as to be a legal threat to Apple.

Juries can be easily convinced that since Apple didn't enforce or make certain hardware differences over the many years, that essentially they allowed OS X on PC, thus now they will have to support it.

I also think Apple should seriously consider moving some factory operations back to the US, it's primary market. Not only because we need the jobs, but because the Chinese are playing economic warfare with their currency targeting to the dollar.

If the Chinese want to keep things even, then Apple and other manufacturing should be moved in proportion to the sales in that particular country.

Umm, you should really do some research before posting things like this. Apple does have hardware differences that require workarounds. In particular, all hackintoshes use software to emulate EFI and the SMC.

Apple really doesn't care about home hackintoshers, and the modified kernels that they install to run on non-supported processors (all AMD, various Intel).

The main effect of this sort of change is to make it difficult to sell hackintoshes with Atoms in them, because it means that people with Atoms can't blindly upgrade when new versions of OS X come out. They need to do some (relatively) complex manipulation to manually install the modified version of the upgraded kernel.

This implies that selling an Atom hack requires an extended commitment to help purchasers upgrade each time a new version of OS X comes out. This is a huge hassle, and no one would be able to make any money doing it.

Still unknown is whether Apple actually had any intent in disabling Atom processor support. It's possible the situation could be much like the cat-and-mouse game with Palm, where Apple released minor updates to iTunes that served only to break compatibility with the Pre smartphone. Or, since Apple likely does not test its software on products it does not ship, the Cupertino, Calif., company may have accidentally broken compatibility with Atom processors.

They changed the CPUID check in the kernel to narrow the field of acceptable CPUs. That would not seem to be an accident.

The kernel now identifies which CPUs it likes. It could be done to exclude atoms. It could be done to create optimized instructions for individual CPUs. I'm not smart enough to figure this out.

This is so stupid! If you like Mac OS X so much, why not buy a mac, instead of buying a piece of sh*t netbook.

And exactly where do you buy a Mac 7- 10" form factor?
It's not for nothing that this size has been selling so well besides being cheap- people like the size, the portability which Apple has failed to offer. Apple tried to convince people that they really wanted thin as in MacBook Air - the public responded differently.

They changed the CPUID check in the kernel to narrow the field of acceptable CPUs. That would not seem to be an accident.

The kernel now identifies which CPUs it likes. It could be done to exclude atoms. It could be done to create optimized instructions for individual CPUs. I'm not smart enough to figure this out.

This isn't new, they've always had the check. It excludes all AMD processors, and pre-core Intel processors. 10.6.1 excluded the new i5//i7 generation, 10.6.2 allows them. There's no technical reason for this check, as the hackintosh community has shown, the Darwin kernel runs without problems on all of these systems.

The real question is as to why was Atom ever allowed. It seems most probable that it was simply overlooked, and this change is considered a bug fix.

Umm, you should really do some research before posting things like this. Apple does have hardware differences that require workarounds. In particular, all hackintoshes use software to emulate EFI and the SMC.

Apple really doesn't care about home hackintoshers, and the modified kernels that they install to run on non-supported processors (all AMD, various Intel).

The main effect of this sort of change is to make it difficult to sell hackintoshes with Atoms in them, because it means that people with Atoms can't blindly upgrade when new versions of OS X come out. They need to do some (relatively) complex manipulation to manually install the modified version of the upgraded kernel.

This implies that selling an Atom hack requires an extended commitment to help purchasers upgrade each time a new version of OS X comes out. This is a huge hassle, and no one would be able to make any money doing it.

OS X on Atoms is only a portion of the big problem being OS X on PC's.

Obviously the sort of hardware change that needs to occur to lock OS X to Apple hardware can't be easily be emulated in software or hardware without considerable expense and substantial performance loss that very few, if any, commercial cloner's or home hacks will undertake.

Apple may have to become more proprietary and the "open concept" although a good intention, has caused a weakness as it is certainly being used against it's business model.

For instance, Microsoft is tying more of it's OS to Direct X enabled video cards, eventually it might not run well at all on anything non-Direct X licensed.

And Apple does care about hackintoshes, because every sale of a hackintosh is a lost hardware sale for Apple.

It's the main reason OS X is not available for generic PC's. Apple is a hardware company.

The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...

If Apple continues in their present neglect, the OSX on PC community will grow so large as to be a legal threat to Apple.

No. They. Won't.

Quote:

Juries can be easily convinced that since Apple didn't enforce or make certain hardware differences over the many years, that essentially they allowed OS X on PC, thus now they will have to support it.

Juries can be easily convinced that since Apple didn't enforce or make certain hardware differences over the many years, that essentially they allowed OS X on PC, thus now they will have to support it.

No. Whatever is in the EULA is the good and final authority about what Apple's intentions are.

If you're referring to a legal principle like Prescription, it doesn't apply here. Perhaps you were referring to that. You make an interesting point, but it won't fly.

Posting requests or information about obtaining pirated or illegally-distributed software is prohibited. Any and all such posts may be removed without warning. If the offending member continues with such posts, he or she is subject to immediate suspension from the forums for any amount of time the administrators or moderators deem necessary. Furthermore, asking for technical support regarding pirated software is also not allowed and will be treated in the same manner as posts that directly ask for pirated software.

This issue is with this link in the AI article, which gives instructions on how to "obtain(ing) pirated or illegally-distibuted software."

They changed the CPUID check in the kernel to narrow the field of acceptable CPUs. That would not seem to be an accident.

The kernel now identifies which CPUs it likes. It could be done to exclude atoms. It could be done to create optimized instructions for individual CPUs. I'm not smart enough to figure this out.

And how do we know this? Oh yes, because the MacOS X kernel is *open source*. All you have to do is change that code, recompile, and swap in your custom kernel. If you want a hacked MacOS X in the first place, that doesn't seem very onerous.

And exactly where do you buy a Mac 7- 10" form factor?
It's not for nothing that this size has been selling so well besides being cheap- people like the size, the portability which Apple has failed to offer. Apple tried to convince people that they really wanted thin as in MacBook Air - the public responded differently.

I wouldn't consider using the terminal to copy the old kernel a "complicated hack." Check out mydellmini.com, if you can follow directions you can do the "hack."

I wouldn't consider using the old kernel actually using 10.6.2 either though, (or a good hack, or even a good idea).

It seems to me that this development might have been what Apple wanted all along. Their agreements say that you can't use OS X on non-Apple branded computers, but they were much happier, and their argument was much stronger when the architectures were also different. The fact that people have to hack the kernel to make it work makes it all the more obvious that it was never *intended* to work in that environment.

OS X on Atoms is only a portion of the big problem being OS X on PC's.

Obviously the sort of hardware change that needs to occur to lock OS X to Apple hardware can't be easily be emulated in software or hardware without considerable expense and substantial performance loss that very few, if any, commercial cloner's or home hacks will undertake.

This clearly doesn't work as Apple has a huge base of installed systems that such a change would be incompatible with. I suppose they had the opportunity when they originally switched to x86 from PPC, but they didn't take it, presumably because it's not as simple a proposition as you make it sound.

Posting requests or information about obtaining pirated or illegally-distributed software is prohibited. Any and all such posts may be removed without warning. If the offending member continues with such posts, he or she is subject to immediate suspension from the forums for any amount of time the administrators or moderators deem necessary. Furthermore, asking for technical support regarding pirated software is also not allowed and will be treated in the same manner as posts that directly ask for pirated software.

This issue is with this link in the AI article, which gives instructions on how to "obtain(ing) pirated or illegally-distibuted software."

I might be wrong, but in light of recent events, what counts as warez/piracy discussions (with links to help), and what doesn't?

Hackintoshes require neither pirating or illegal distribution of software, so I doubt the link causes any problems. This isn't to say that there aren't people out there who obtain pirated copies of OS X and install it on their hackintoshes, just that there are lots of people who purchase the retail copy and install it.

Hackintoshes do require violating Apple's EULA, a separate issue. This is likely a problem in the US, but there may be many countries where Apple's EULA is invalid for whatever reason.

... the portability which Apple has failed to offer. Apple tried to convince people that they really wanted thin as in MacBook Air - the public responded differently.

As long as you've been in this forum you have pushed this same crap over and over again that the Air is some kind of flop even though multiple people have pointed out how wrong you are about that.

You don't like the Air, a lot of people might not like it, but that's irrelevant against the fact that an absolutely huge number of people do like it, bought one, and love it to death. The Air is a very popular computer that sells very well. It has made a pile of cash for Apple and has been a gigantic success for them. These are the facts, regardless of what your personal feelings are.

It's a sign of insanity when someone is constantly presented with facts that they then don't believe. Global warming is real, Alien Abductions are not, and the MacBook Air is a very popular computer that sells well. Get used to it and stop spreading the FUD.

As long as you've been in this forum you have pushed this same crap over and over again that the Air is some kind of flop even though multiple people have pointed out how wrong you are about that.

You don't like the Air, a lot of people might not like it, but that's irrelevant against the fact that an absolutely huge number of people do like it, bought one, and love it to death. The Air is a very popular computer that sells very well. It has made a pile of cash for Apple and has been a gigantic success for them. These are the facts, regardless of what your personal feelings are.

It's a sign of insanity when someone is constantly presented with facts that they then don't believe. Global warming is real, Alien Abductions are not, and the MacBook Air is a very popular computer that sells well. Get used to it and stop spreading the FUD.

Gigantic success? HA!!!!
Where is your link to that FUD?
When was the last time you even saw a MacBook Air advertisement?

This implies that selling an Atom hack requires an extended commitment to help purchasers upgrade each time a new version of OS X comes out. This is a huge hassle, and no one would be able to make any money doing it.

And perhaps equally important is that it would force such vendors out into Apple's legal spotlight.

It's impossible to know, both because Apple is a secretive company and also since it would not be in their interests to admit it even if true, but it seems unlikely that the relatively small community of hackintoshers is really on Apple's radar. I'd see it as the computing equivalent of "Don't ask, don't tell." It's even arguable that Apple's benefits from it being seen that people will jump through some substantial technical hoops in order to use OS X.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacTripper

Apple is a hardware company.

Oh please, not those tired old arguments again.

Apple is not a hardware company. Apple is not a software company.

Apple sells a total computing experience whose value, for which Mac users pay a not inconsiderable price, lies in the tight integration of hardware and software. Neither one of those works without the other to support Apple's business model. Over the years Apple has refined their expertise in doing this to a very high level, making it hard for others to replicate.

There are of course other business models, but who wants to jump into the snake pit with Dell, Lenovo, Acer and dozens of others?

And exactly where do you buy a Mac 7- 10" form factor?
It's not for nothing that this size has been selling so well besides being cheap- people like the size, the portability which Apple has failed to offer. Apple tried to convince people that they really wanted thin as in MacBook Air - the public responded differently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazoobee

As long as you've been in this forum you have pushed this same crap over and over again that the Air is some kind of flop even though multiple people have pointed out how wrong you are about that.

You don't like the Air, a lot of people might not like it, but that's irrelevant against the fact that an absolutely huge number of people do like it, bought one, and love it to death. The Air is a very popular computer that sells very well. It has made a pile of cash for Apple and has been a gigantic success for them. These are the facts, regardless of what your personal feelings are.

It's a sign of insanity when someone is constantly presented with facts that they then don't believe. Global warming is real, Alien Abductions are not, and the MacBook Air is a very popular computer that sells well. Get used to it and stop spreading the FUD.

Apple doesn't differentiate between its portables when reporting profits, so it's likely that neither of these positions can be substantiated, though if either of you have a real reference I'd like to see it. I have a first generation Air and I've never really been happy with its crappy Intel graphics, but I love its look and feel. I expect the 9400M versions are sweet.

Apple doesn't differentiate between its portables when reporting profits, so it's likely that neither of these positions can be substantiated, though if either of you have a real reference I'd like to see it. I have a first generation Air and I've never really been happy with its crappy Intel graphics, but I love its look and feel. I expect the 9400M versions are sweet.

That first generation is basically a portable typewriter though it looks and feels amazing.

That first generation is basically a portable typewriter though it looks and feels amazing.

Well, it's a bit better than that I use it for software development and the processor isn't bad for things like emacs, mail, and compilation. It really chugs with video decoding though, any kind of HD video is unwatchable.

And you still could not tell the difference between it and a typewriter! Wow you are dumber than your posts reflect. You must really think them hard! Kudos for that

sigh

the first macbook air was very unique, however, which its size came small limitations on the hardware due to power consumption. beyond email, typing up docs, and basic internet, the video card power lacked... A LOT. video stuttered, and was very choppy.

im pretty sure he knows the difference in a typewritter and a macbook air. the difference is, and i think what he was trying to make, is that the first gen air wasnt really good for much more than typing.

the first macbook air was very unique, however, which its size came small limitations on the hardware due to power consumption. beyond email, typing up docs, and basic internet, the video card power lacked... A LOT. video stuttered, and was very choppy.

im pretty sure he knows the difference in a typewritter and a macbook air. the difference is, and i think what he was trying to make, is that the first gen air wasnt really good for much more than typing.

thank you for doing my spoon feeding to the underling
I just don't have the time or patience

the first macbook air was very unique, however, which its size came small limitations on the hardware due to power consumption. beyond email, typing up docs, and basic internet, the video card power lacked... A LOT. video stuttered, and was very choppy.

im pretty sure he knows the difference in a typewritter and a macbook air. the difference is, and i think what he was trying to make, is that the first gen air wasnt really good for much more than typing.